Well this is a new one

[fireheart17]

Mother and daughter try to get out of licence photos being taken due to religious beliefs

Now you'd think that this might be a Muslim woman who wears the niqab or burqa. (two COMPLETELY different garments) But it's not.

They are full-blooded Christians, who argue that having a licence photo taken violates the Second Commandment "Thou shalt not make any graven images".

The legal ruling was that while they understand her religious beliefs, having a photo taken is an inherent requirement of having a licence and thus, the pair's complaint was dismissed.

Thoughts?

(For the record, inherent requirements refers to the very "basics" for something and they can't be changed. For example, if a job requires an employee to drive cars, they can discriminate against hiring someone who is blind)

[Rapscallion]

Well, they don't have to drive. That's a privelege, not a right.

Rapscallion

[fireheart17]

Well, they don't have to drive. That's a privelege, not a right.

Rapscallion

True.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the graven images rule against making images of GOD/Jesus?

So are these women believing that they're God/Jesus reincarnated?

[woodensunshine]

I know that here in the states there is at least one religious group who can get state issued ID's and licenses without a photo due to religious expemption. Of course, according to the link below, some of the states that allow that are ones with a strong Amish and Mennonite concentration.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...ments/LWVJ.pdf

[fireheart17]

I know that here in the states there is at least one religious group who can get state issued ID's and licenses without a photo due to religious expemption. Of course, according to the link below, some of the states that allow that are ones with a strong Amish and Mennonite concentration.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...ments/LWVJ.pdf

Amish/Mennonite groups are nonexistent down here, it's mostly a US thing I believe. Australian law is a little bit different.

Quick search reveals that the Amish mainly don't allow photos because of pride, but partially also due tot he commandment mentioned above (which comes from exodus). My question is why the woman and her daughter would need a drivers licence so badly.

Basically, you don't need a licence to drive a horse buggy here iirc. You also don't need state issued ID unless you are buying age restricted products or entering age restricted places.

[HYHYBT]

So many unexpected products turn out to be age-restricted, though...

There is (or at least was; I haven't heard of them since the 80's) a group of Mennonites who do drive cars, but they not only have to be black, but any chrome or other shiny parts they paint black too, so as not to show off.

Which never made sense to me; isn't showing off how humble you are more prideful than blending in unobtrusively?

[Andara Bledin]

Which never made sense to me; isn't showing off how humble you are more prideful than blending in unobtrusively?

Pretty much.

If you have to go to special lengths to avoid being prideful, you're kind of doing it wrong. I remember as a kid watching some show about a woman becoming a nun and how they have their hair cut short to keep them from being prideful over their hair; only the hair cutting has become a rite of passage, so they've become prideful over having their hair cut short.

And, yes, the whole idea behind the "no graven images" is to not worship idols (that includes things like, say, images of the Virgin Mary and crucifixes, but most people just kind of ignore that part) and really doesn't say anything one way or another about depictions of individuals for regulatory or record-keeping purposes.

^-.-^

[wolfie]

Just curious, but what do that mother and daughter use for money? In both Canada and the U.S., every bill and coin has a face on it (don't know about where you are), so that by possessing cash, they are in possession of graven images.

[daleduke17]

Just curious, but what do that mother and daughter use for money? In both Canada and the U.S., every bill and coin has a face on it (don't know about where you are), so that by possessing cash, they are in possession of graven images.

Same with certain clothes, the local newspaper, and even their religious magazines have pictures in them.

[TheHuckster]

Which never made sense to me; isn't showing off how humble you are more prideful than blending in unobtrusively?

Don't forget that the Amish and Mennonites are a very closed community. Among their neighbors, there is little, if any, "bling" that gives the other an impression that their grass is greener. As soon as any one of their fellow kin has a shiny object or anything else to show off, then they feel that pride had gotten the better of them, which they perceive as shameful.

They really don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of them.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Cool. So I could go, steal those people's licenses, and no one could say boo when I present them because there is no picture on the license to compare to!

Good idea mom and daughter~!

Being more serious now. The second commandment in full is this:

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This requires interpretation, no doubt. Some interpret it as an extension and clarification of the "don't make/worship false idols" in that they take these sentences as a whole. Others are more strict and say we aren't to make any images of any living creature.

Personally, I feel that if they don't want their picture taken for the requirement of a driver's license (which is not a right to have) then they can deal with not having a driver's license. I'm cynical enough to believe they caused this stink because they wanted attention. Honestly, if they believe that that commandment is THAT strict, then they shouldn't have any pictures or images of living creatures in their house or anywhere else.

[fireheart17]

So I did a bit of googling:

There is a VERY tiny Mennonite community in Australia, but they're based in New South Wales. Not Queensland.

Australian money is very much the same: all of our coins have Queen Elizabeth II on the back and all of our notes have some form of face on them.

I'm guessing that in this case, it'd apply to just THEM and being an example of "pride".

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I'm guessing that in this case, it'd apply to just THEM and being an example of "pride".

It's not about pride of the individual. It's the idea that we should not try to recreate what God has already created, because he has done it perfectly, and who are we to try and imitate God? Therefore, anyone who uses/ who has the imagery is at fault. At least according to the strict version.

(I believe Islam has a belief like this, which is why a lot of Mosques have no imagery in them at all, just those mosaics with lines and shapes.)

[protege]

(I believe Islam has a belief like this, which is why a lot of Mosques have no imagery in them at all, just those mosaics with lines and shapes.)

I remember reading about why there are no images in their mosques. Something to do with blasphemy...but I forget now.

Statues or "idols" seem to be a Catholic thing. Locally, many churches contain a crucifix behind the altar, Virgin Mary statues, and others nearby. The few times that I went to temple with Grandma (she once volunteered there), I don't recall seeing anything similar. There were symbols, but no statures IIRC.

[fireheart17]

I remember reading about why there are no images in their mosques. Something to do with blasphemy...but I forget now.

I think I'm WAY off with this, but it's something to do with the idea that Mohammed and/or Allah are already perfect, human beings are flawed, and anyone who does create an image of Mohammed/Allah has most likely made several flaws in the process.

Although it doesn't excuse the fact that the mosques that DO go all out are beautiful on the inside (a number of mosques are fairly straightforward)